• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Creationists dug out a living dinosaur and were able to publish it in a leading magazine?!

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by joinfree, Feb 9, 2019.

  1. joinfree

    joinfree Well-Known Member

    901
    +168
    Christian
    Single
    Creationists dug out a living dinosaur and were able to publish it in a leading magazine! Death of Darwinism? So the Biblical Science of Creation is not pseudoscience, because it has at least one (not detracted yet - surprise!) peer-review article: Mary Higby Schweitzer, Jennifer L Wittmeyer, and John R Horner. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. B (2007), 274: 183-197.
    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2006.3705

    Will I mumble to you that at least the cells in the dinosaur were alive, but the brain didn't work ?!
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Legroom

    Legroom New Member

    71
    +23
    United States Minor Outlying Islands
    Presbyterian
    Married
    This is my first day here and that's bizarre! Caught my attention! Is the Royal Society creationist or scientist?
     
  3. Warden_of_the_Storm

    Warden_of_the_Storm Well-Known Member

    +3,319
    United Kingdom
    Deist
    Single
    That's... no, that's not a living dinosaur by any stretch and it's also not what you're trying to make it out to be.
    Also, the people who dug it up weren't Creationists.
     
  4. PloverWing

    PloverWing Episcopalian

    +1,634
    United States
    Anglican
    Married
    1) I only read the abstract, not the whole paper, but I'm not seeing where the paper said the dinosaur was alive, or that some of its individual cells were alive.

    2) How does the presence of soft tissue in dinosaur remains help to establish Young Earth Creationism?
     
  5. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,310
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Not creationists.
    Not, in any way, alive.

    You should apply for a position at Fox News. You'd fit right in.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  6. lasthero

    lasthero Newbie

    +1,912
    Seeker
    Without even looking at the first post, I’m going to guess it’s about the Schweitzer find.

    *looks*

    Yup.

    Old, old news.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  7. lasthero

    lasthero Newbie

    +1,912
    Seeker
    The usual implication from creationists is that it’s impossible for the cells to have survived millions of years, therefore dinosaurs can’t be millions of years old.

    The scientific community - including the people who wrote this paper and made the find - disagree.

    It’s worth noting that the vast majority of dinosaur fossils don’t have soft tissue in them. The more natural thing would be to question what’s different about these particular fossils, and the article - if you actually bother to read it - goes into that.
     
  8. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    +6,791
    Atheist
    Legal Union (Other)
    Was it a turkey? Like this thread?
     
  9. PloverWing

    PloverWing Episcopalian

    +1,634
    United States
    Anglican
    Married
    Thanks. I wouldn't have made that connection. The paper's authors, as you note, seem to be taking for granted the conventional scientific time scale.

    In my case, it's not so much a matter of not bothering to read it, but rather being aware that this paper is way outside my area of expertise, so I'm not able to understand their research in any depth. I gather, though, that the remains of this particular T.Rex have unusual components, and I'm glad there is investigation into how this came about and what we can learn from these components.
     
  10. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,310
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    That's because the "conventional scientific time scale" is based on massive amounts of measured data. The earth is billions of years old, just as surely as a typical large truck weighs thousands of pounds.
     
  11. That Guy 11200

    That Guy 11200 Newbie

    59
    +39
    Atheist
    Private
    Part of the misunderstandings of this nature are due to a common misconception that a 'fossil' means all original materials have been replaced with rock minerals. However, once you understand that many fossils are actually original material, it becomes less of a problem. Although the preservation of very degradable material like proteins is very rare, it isn't impossible over geological time.

    Some common examples of original material preservation are teeth and pollen. A rarer example would be the aragonite of some trilobite shells, some of which are over half a billion years old. Aragonite is a relatively unstable mineral that usually breaks down and dissolves in water not long after death.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  12. PloverWing

    PloverWing Episcopalian

    +1,634
    United States
    Anglican
    Married
    Um, yes, of course...
    What, do you think I disagree with you? o_O
     
  13. juvenissun

    juvenissun ... and God saw that it was good.

    +755
    Baptist
    Married
    What is wrong with this implication?
     
  14. lasthero

    lasthero Newbie

    +1,912
    Seeker
    It makes the incorrect assumption that it’s impossible for cells to survive that long.
     
  15. USincognito

    USincognito Do u? Supporter

    +11,888
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    With the exception of the citation, none of this makes any sense whatsoever.
     
  16. USincognito

    USincognito Do u? Supporter

    +11,888
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Also worth pointing out that most people think that body fossils are the only thing that is a fossil. They're not aware of the extensive trace fossil record.
     
  17. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +6,210
    Anglican
    Married
    It also makes the assumption that the possibility of such a late survival of dinosaurs somehow invalidates the geology of an old Earth.
     
  18. lasthero

    lasthero Newbie

    +1,912
    Seeker
    I’ve never understood the creationist obsession with trying to prove dinosaurs lived with humans. Ultimately, all it would mean is that a species we thought was dead didn’t die. It wouldn’t even be the first time that’s happened.
     
  19. The IbanezerScrooge

    The IbanezerScrooge Active Member

    268
    +368
    Atheist
    Private
    No, not a turkey. But interestingly, the structure of the collagen most closely resembled that of modern Ostrich's!
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  20. joinfree

    joinfree Well-Known Member

    901
    +168
    Christian
    Single
    But the survival of other things over alleged "Billions of years" is clear sign of correctness of YE Creationism.
     
Loading...